3 ms·

> Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, That's not how OAuth works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth https://en.wikipedia.org/

> Sites will use such a service to invade your privacy even further, That's not how OAuth works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth > the government has a record of every site you've logged into Only the ones where you chose to use their service. Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? Honestly, the amount of FUD in this thread is absurd. The government already has an enormous amount of information about your online activity! If they want more, their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it!

wyager 9y ago
I know very well how oauth works, thanks, but I'm not sure why you thought that had anything to do with my comment. The invasion of privacy comes from websites insisting on knowing who I am and refusing to allow me to make anonymous/pseudonymous accounts. If there's a convenient API to do so provided by the government, that's bad for users. > Only the ones where you chose to use their service. There are hundreds of websites that require you to use Facebook to log in. With government-sanctioned ID, it will be worse. > Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? This already exists in several countries, including Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number Hopefully this serves as an indicator that your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated. There's no "imagination" involved, this is how it is right now in places where this exists. > their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it! That is the exact strategy I would use if my goal was to help the government gain more control over the internet. Letting people give their freedom away in exchange for a bit of convenience is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
- ineptech 9y ago
  > your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated The reason I'm not worried about the government finding out which websites I visit is because they already know, from traffic inspection at the ISP level. Don't think I'm the one miscalibrated here. Beyond that, the problem with this "but they might do something bad!" argument is not that it's false, it's that it's always true in every case. Literally every government policy could be the precursor to something terrible. Sure, they could introduce an optional OAuth to try to stop identity theft and then later use it to censor the internet, but they could also just censor the internet straightaway.
  - wyager 9y ago
    Speak for yourself. It's non-trivial (in fact, very challenging) for the government to identify which websites I use. I don't have to put in much work to make this happen. If everyone started requiring the use of a dragnet surveillance program just to log in to services, it would become next to impossible to protect yourself.
    - ineptech 9y ago
      > If everyone started requiring the use of a dragnet surveillance program just to log in to services, it would become next to impossible to protect yourself. Yes, this is true. If all websites start requiring their visitors to do something their visitors overwhelmingly don't want, the result would be something their visitors don't want. Kind of suggests that they won't do that, yes? We will probably have to agree to disagree here; you're imagining a world where oauth.fed.gov slowly becomes more and more widespread until it's ubiquitous and we have no other options, and that just doesn't sound realistic to me. (I think it would struggle for adoption even if it were implemented perfectly and had the best privacy controls possible, due to exactly the fears you're enumerating in this discussion) But we are talking about something hypothetical, so either of us could be right. At any rate thanks for arguing forcefully but staying respectful and on topic!
      - wyager 9y ago
        Users generally hate Facebook login but sites use it anyway because it's good for advertising and lets them outsource fraud avoidance to Facebook. The same and more benefits (to sites, not users) apply to government provided auth. Again, please look at what's happening in South Korea. I think you're vastly underestimating how likely businesses are to adopt such a thing and how likely the government is to gradually incentivize (and eventually force) businesses into using it.
jasikpark 9y ago
The true point of imagining the login.gov will become the defacto standard for Oauth is the same reason why Tinder was Facebook login only. It's more secure and easier for people to use when they only have one login. The consolidation of most internet logins to login.gov gives the US government more power that it shouldn't have. All you need to do is look at Google. It's not necessarily an everyday appearance, but Twitter is full of accounts of Google revoking access to accounts with no warning, and no effective or efficient way to appeal.

wyager 9y ago

I know very well how oauth works, thanks, but I'm not sure why you thought that had anything to do with my comment. The invasion of privacy comes from websites insisting on knowing who I am and refusing to allow me to make anonymous/pseudonymous accounts. If there's a convenient API to do so provided by the government, that's bad for users. > Only the ones where you chose to use their service. There are hundreds of websites that require you to use Facebook to log in. With government-sanctioned ID, it will be worse. > Or are we imaginging a future where this service has been made mandatory, and logins and passwords have been abolished? This already exists in several countries, including Korea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration_number Hopefully this serves as an indicator that your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated. There's no "imagination" involved, this is how it is right now in places where this exists. > their strategy will probably not be writing open source software and hoping you opt in to it! That is the exact strategy I would use if my goal was to help the government gain more control over the internet. Letting people give their freedom away in exchange for a bit of convenience is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

ineptech 9y ago
> your skepticism on this topic is wildly miscalibrated The reason I'm not worried about the government finding out which websites I visit is because they already know, from traffic inspection at the ISP level. Don't think I'm the one miscalibrated here. Beyond that, the problem with this "but they might do something bad!" argument is not that it's false, it's that it's always true in every case. Literally every government policy could be the precursor to something terrible. Sure, they could introduce an optional OAuth to try to stop identity theft and then later use it to censor the internet, but they could also just censor the internet straightaway.
- wyager 9y ago
  Speak for yourself. It's non-trivial (in fact, very challenging) for the government to identify which websites I use. I don't have to put in much work to make this happen. If everyone started requiring the use of a dragnet surveillance program just to log in to services, it would become next to impossible to protect yourself.
  - ineptech 9y ago
    > If everyone started requiring the use of a dragnet surveillance program just to log in to services, it would become next to impossible to protect yourself. Yes, this is true. If all websites start requiring their visitors to do something their visitors overwhelmingly don't want, the result would be something their visitors don't want. Kind of suggests that they won't do that, yes? We will probably have to agree to disagree here; you're imagining a world where oauth.fed.gov slowly becomes more and more widespread until it's ubiquitous and we have no other options, and that just doesn't sound realistic to me. (I think it would struggle for adoption even if it were implemented perfectly and had the best privacy controls possible, due to exactly the fears you're enumerating in this discussion) But we are talking about something hypothetical, so either of us could be right. At any rate thanks for arguing forcefully but staying respectful and on topic!
    - wyager 9y ago
      Users generally hate Facebook login but sites use it anyway because it's good for advertising and lets them outsource fraud avoidance to Facebook. The same and more benefits (to sites, not users) apply to government provided auth. Again, please look at what's happening in South Korea. I think you're vastly underestimating how likely businesses are to adopt such a thing and how likely the government is to gradually incentivize (and eventually force) businesses into using it.

jasikpark 9y ago

The true point of imagining the login.gov will become the defacto standard for Oauth is the same reason why Tinder was Facebook login only. It's more secure and easier for people to use when they only have one login. The consolidation of most internet logins to login.gov gives the US government more power that it shouldn't have. All you need to do is look at Google. It's not necessarily an everyday appearance, but Twitter is full of accounts of Google revoking access to accounts with no warning, and no effective or efficient way to appeal.